Crack and Powered Cocaine: A Look Into Government Policy

I see using him in a sting operation against the nicaroguan government.

__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.

__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.

Probably because crack, unlike cocaine, destroyed whole communities. I don't know how old a lot of you are, but the crack epidemic was pretty well covered when I was a kid in the news.

Cocaine and Crack are basically the same exact thing, just Crack is cheaper and is taken differently. The reason why it 'destroyed' communities is because of how cheap it was. Cocaine didn't ruin entire communities because the people doing coke were the people working in high rise office buildings making 6 figures, or movie stars.

And yes, this isn't news; Our drug laws are way out of whack. As Shaka pointed out, thank Reagen.

Wasn't Nixon the one who originally declared war on drugs? Granted, Reagan was the one who created the crack-specific laws (crack surfaced during his administration), but you can blame the drug debacle on every president since the 20's.

Wasn't Nixon the one who originally declared war on drugs? Granted, Reagan was the one who created the crack-specific laws (crack surfaced during his administration), but you can blame the drug debacle on every president since the 20's.

Yes, but I believe Reagan was the one who actually ramped up it to the full scale war it is today. Don't quote me on that though.

__________________
"Originally posted by J. Stein: the purple spinny thing means it was a sarcastic comment.

Cocaine and Crack are basically the same exact thing, just Crack is cheaper and is taken differently. The reason why it 'destroyed' communities is because of how cheap it was. Cocaine didn't ruin entire communities because the people doing coke were the people working in high rise office buildings making 6 figures, or movie stars.

And yes, this isn't news; Our drug laws are way out of whack. As Shaka pointed out, thank Reagen.

Exactly, hence the probability why its got a harsher penalty. More easily made, distributed, and accessible.

__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.

Because while it does have net negative effects, it didn't have that complete destruction that crack did on whole neighborhoods.

__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.

Btw, crack is cheaper and more powerful than it's powdered counterpart. Does it warrant penalties a 100x harsher? No, of course not (anyone that pays attention to my posts know I favor zero punishment for personal drug use/possession alone anyway), but it certainly is a bigger threat.

No

THe idea is that cocaine = the rich white man's drug and thus suffers less of a penalty.

THe idea is that cocaine = the rich white man's drug and thus suffers less of a penalty.

What do you mean no? What does that have to do with what I posted? I never discussed the reasons behind the penalties, merely that it's cheaper and more powerful, thus a stronger response makes sense in my mind (just not a 100x more...).

You seem to have an infatuation with stalking me and trying to call me out. You keep on failing pretty hard though... try working on your reading comprehension and staying on topic.

__________________
"Originally posted by J. Stein: the purple spinny thing means it was a sarcastic comment.

What do you mean no? What does that have to do with what I posted? I never discussed the reasons behind the penalties, merely that it's cheaper and more powerful, thus a stronger response makes sense in my mind (just not a 100x more...).

You seem to have an infatuation with stalking me and trying to call me out. You keep on failing pretty hard though... try working on your reading comprehension and staying on topic.

Its more addictive, the high doesn't last as long so you use it more often, its less expensive which leads to easier access are the first things that come to my mind. Don't get me wrong, coke isn't anything to play around with either, but crack is surely more dangerous and a bigger threat.

Its more addictive, the high doesn't last as long so you use it more often, its less expensive which leads to easier access are the first things that come to my mind. Don't get me wrong, coke isn't anything to play around with either, but crack is surely more dangerous and a bigger threat.

yep, that and people that do crack will more likely do way stupider **** compared to those who do coke.

and my friend didn't get 5 years and he got caught with an ounce of base. when will you guys understand that the courts try to give you a break?